----- Original Message ----
> From: Gianugo Rabellino <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 4:54:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >> From: Gianugo Rabellino
> >> To: [email protected]
> >> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 4:35:44 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >> > ----- Original Message ----
> >> >
> >> >> From: Gianugo Rabellino
> >> >> To: [email protected]
> >> >> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 4:20:14 PM
> >> >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Dealing with copyright issue (See ESME-47)
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >> >> > I'm hoping another lengthy diatribe from you won't be
> >> >> > necessary. While I don't blame you for David's disappearance,
> >> >> > the reason we bother to document policy is so people don't
> >> >> > need to get creative with their legal understanding of how the ASF
> works.
> >> >> > In the future should this issue ever present itself to you,
> >> >> > I hope you will do the proper thing and point the errant person
> >> >> > at the relevant ASF policy
> >> >>
> >> >> That would be the same policy that says we _must_ remove copyright
> >> >> notices from source files, right?
> >> >
> >> > Technically it says the copyright holder must do that, not the ASF.
> >>
> >> Oh, please - let's not go there. The fact that the policy misses a (4)
> >> remove the file in question still doesn't mean the "must" is
> >> irrelevant. That would be playing with words.
> >
> > The policy isn't lacking that. The issue is simple- how to treat commits
> > that are licensed to us properly but fail to follow policy? The answer
> > is simple, either the committer modifies those commits to comply with policy
> > or his commit access will be revoked and the committed code will be subject
> > to third-party treatment. In this case the project has elected to be
> > slightly
> > more accurate with the situation, but they have done no harm to the org
> > nor the committer in question by doing so.
>
> There would be a lot to comment on you interpolating the policy text,
> for a start.
It's not just me, Geir basically told them the same thing on legal-disc...@.
> Maybe it's just better we all forget about this mishap,
> otherwise we are going to spend the next few days arguing about the
> wording of a policy that, to me, is now just a simple guideline. I
> guess I'll just sit here, hoping the day will never come where I will
> have to pull a told-you-so.
Were this a project I was a committer on, I would probably vote to bite the
bullet and pull the commits in question as I don't believe people should be
rewarding for taking a dump on community property. But this is an incubating
project trying to get some code out the door, and is free to make its own
policy-aligned choices.
